Kaleidoscope Model of Policy Change:

Applications to Systematic Land Titling Regularization in Nigeria

Danielle Resnick

PIM Political Economy Workshop, Sept. 11, 2019

Motivations and Aims

Identifying entrypoints for improving food and agricultural policies requires understanding the confluence of interests, ideas, and institutions in a particular domain

• Why are certain policies selected over others? • Why are some policies implemented to a greater extent than others?• Why are some policies entrenched while others are amenable to reform?

Conceptualizations of the policy process range from too simplistic and linear to too complex and context-specific to uncover generalizable findings

• Required medium-range theorizing that allows for dealing with “equifinality”

Kaleidoscope Model (KM)

Source: Resnick, Haggblade, Babu, Hendriks, and Mather (2018)

Inductively derived from review of political economy and policy process literature

• 16 key variables emerged

• Tested relevance of these variables in disparate countries and different policy spheres

Applications to Systematic Land Titling Regularization (SLTR) in Nigeria

Why has there been differential implementation of SLTR across states where it

emerged on the policy agenda?

Status of SLTR Implementation across Nigerian States

Indicators of

implementation

Cross

River

Jigawa Kaduna Kano Katsina Ondo

1) GIS set up Yes Partially Yes Yes No No

2) Land records

digitized

Yes Partially Yes Yes No Yes

3) CfOs titled Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes

4) CfOs issued Yes Yes No Yes No Nob

5) Budget line for

SLTR

Yes Yes No Yes No No

6) Continued cash

release for SLTR

No Yes No Yes No No

SLTR still ongoing?a Partially Yes No Yes No No

Notes: aThis is as by December 2016. b Only three CfOs were issued in Ondo.

Land Governance reform emerges on the policy agenda

Only 3% of land is titled and Land Use Act of 1978 widely shown to contribute to land tenure insecurity and open to abuse by governors

Elections in 2007 were first democratic ones without Obassanjo

President Yar’Adua placed reform of LUA on his Seven Point Agenda electoral campaign in 2007, established Presidential Technical Committee on Land Reform (PTCLR)

Late President Yar’Adua on the campaign trail

Convergence on SLTR as modality

PTCLR visits countries using SLTR, including

Rwanda

National Institute of Surveyors opposed the design as it contradicted their training but convinced by the Surveyors Council of Nigeria (SURCON)

SLTR widely considered less expensive than sporadic titling

Obtaining land certificates through LTR, RwandaSource: World Bank

Differential adoption within states

Donors (DfID and FAO), PTCLR,

agro-business

(e.g. Allied Industries), Dangote

Governors who sought revenue

mobilization and investment or had

land background

Adopted after the 2011 elections

when governors had longer time-

horizons

PTCLR inspects new technology for SLTR

Differential Implementation

Reviewing display of beneficiaries, Kano StateSource: SLTR Kano

Only Kano had sufficient internally generated revenue and donor diversity (DfID, FAO, EC)

Technical skills and human resources low everywhere

Surveyor General, Commissioner of Lands or Governors were champions in all states but Kaduna

States where bureaucrats were sidelined by consultants had little incentive to implement

SLTR Refinements and Reversals

Cost of CfOs still too high

Decline in oil prices caused Ondo to default on its MoU with DfID

Elections in 2015 halted momentum in states with a new party, e.g. Kaduna

Handover to El-Rufa’i ends Kaduna’s SLTR program

Suite of Tools

Measurement table – allow for replicability in identifying presence/absence of variable

Policy chronologies – process tracing by indicating whether certain events precipitated subsequent policy changes

Policy domain mapping – roles of key actors (e.g., formulation, administration, oversight, or knowledge)

Circle of influence graphics – aligns stakeholders in a two- dimensional space to map their preferences vis-à-vis a policy with their power

Hypothesis testing tables – codes significance of variables

Policy Stages Determinants of Policy Change Hypothesis Measurement

Agenda setting 1. Recognized, relevant

problem

Credible evidence of a policy problem by a

concerned constituency increases public

attention to finding a policy solution

Identify the constituency concerned. Identify

evidence used to assess the problem and

measure its significance.

2. Focusing event A well-defined event focuses public attention

on a problem or creates a window of

opportunity for policy change

Identify unexpected or non-routinized

events. Indicate whether and how the event

attracted the attention of advocates.

3. Powerful advocates Strong individuals, organizations, or

companies support a new or changed policy

to key decision makers.

List actors lobbying for policy change.

Design 4. Knowledge & research Evidence-based knowledge shapes feasible

design

List existing or commissioned case studies,

research, or examples that informed the

design of the policy program.

5. Norms, biases, ideology &

beliefs

Beliefs and biases shape the range of

acceptable design features

List norms or beliefs that influenced policy

design and to whom they belonged.

6. Cost-benefit calculations Expected costs and expected benefits

(political, economic, social) determine the

preferred design.

List particularly salient costs or benefits that

influenced policy design.

Lubinda

becomes

minister

1st Indaba

Donors

pledge $1.6

mn

ZNFU Lima

Credit

Scheme uses

VISA

Rollout

begins

Pres.

Lungu

launches

e-voucher

Lungu

elected

president

2nd Indaba

IMF Article IV

consultation

Cabinet

approves

e-voucher

Political/Economic/Administrative/Research Events

FISP specific events

CATEGORIES OF ACTORS LEGEND

Primary Roles

Non-governmental

stakeholders Veto player institution

Policy design

President

Cabinet Policy implementation

Government actors MAL MAL MoF

Agribusiness & Marketing Policy &

Planning Dept Oversight

Policy guidance

Policy lobbying

Primary Functions & Flows

Sub-national actors

Financial

Authority

Information

ROLES, FLOWS, and RELATIONSHIPS

ZNFU, FAZ, GTAZ, fertilizer suppliers, seed suppliers Donors

IAPRI, ACF, CFU, JSTR, CSPR

Parliament-Ag committee-Public accts committee

PACOs

DACOs

AuditorGeneral

Circle of Influence, Mid- 2013

Support Oppose

Neutral

Support Oppose

Neutral

Circle of Influence, Mid- 2015

Policy Stages Determinants of Policy Change Input Subsidy Design Modalities Vitamin A Fortification Proposals TotalFSP FISP E-voucher

scratch-

card

E-voucher

Visa card

Maize

meal

Sugar Maize

meal

Sugar Instances

variable was

present2002 2009 2013 2015 1996 1998 2006 2009 (percent)Imple-

mented

Imple-

mented

Stalled Imple-

mented

Vetoed Imple-

mented

Vetoed Reform

stalled

Agenda setting 1. Recognized, relevant problem+ + + + + + + +

100%

2. Focusing event + + + + + + 75%3. Powerful advocacy coalitions

+ + + + + + + +100%

Design 4. Knowledge & research + + + + + + + 88%5. Norms, biases, ideology and

beliefs+ + - + -

63%

6. Cost-benefit calculations + + - + - + + 88%Adoption 7. Powerful proponents vs.

opponents+ + - 0 - + - -

88%

8. Government veto players + + + + - - 100%9. Propitious timing + + 33%

Implementation 10. Requisite budget + + + - 100%11. Institutional capacity - - + - 100%12.Implementing stage veto

players- - + +

100%

13. Commitment of policy

champions+ + + +

100%

Evaluation & Reform 14. Changing information and

beliefs- - + -

100%

15. Changing material conditions- - + -

100%

16. Institutional shifts - 0 - 50%

Conclusions

Potential for predictive explanation for why some policies are adopted but never implemented, and why some never even get on the agenda

Opportunities for controlled comparative analysis by identifying common drivers of policy change in…

• similar policy domains across different countries or states (e.g. Nigerian land governance)

• different policy domains within the same country (e.g. Zambian input subsidies and micronutrients)

Integrates importance of interests, ideas, and institutions, as well as the relative weight of external and domestic actors

More information at…

Journal article:

Resnick, D., S. Haggblade, S. Babu, S. Hendriks, and D.Mather. 2018. “The Kaleidoscope Model of Policy Change: Applications to Food Security Policy in Zambia.” World Development 109(September): 101-120.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305750X18301232

IFPRI policy seminar:

http://www.ifpri.org/event/what-drives-policy-change-insights-kaleidoscope-model-food-security-policy

Brief:

https://www.canr.msu.edu/resources/conceptualizing-key-drivers-of-policy-change-an-introduction-to-the-kaleidoscope-model

Agrilinks blog:

https://www.agrilinks.org/post/spinning-kaleidoscope-model-policy-change